Re: unconscionable fees?

More | Report Post

secretary wrote:
> What percentage of cases do you think on average turn out to be nuisance
cases
> in a typical caseload?

Define "nuisance case" in a meaningful manner.

>> On 9/28/06, secretary wrote:
>>> Well, it seems like in order to get a large group of people together,
where
>>> each member in the group is both willing and able to risk $2-4 k on a case
>>> analysis, you would have to get a group of people who were mostly smart
>>> right? I mean, people who make poor decisions with their money usually
>>> don't have a lot of money to spend. Also, foolish people do not tend to
be
>>> willing to spend what money they do have on "analysis." They do not
>> usually
>>> appreciate the value of analysis the way smarter people do.

The fact that people don't want to pay for something that has value makes
them at best "cheap" and at worst thieves. Is your theory that an ethical
attorney should provide free services to foolish misers or risk being accused
of being unethical? Where in the world does that makes sense? How long would
anyone survive if they had to live off the generousity of cheapskates and
other deadbeats?

> So, it seems to me that if you have a lot of people paying you to do many
> hours' worth of "analysis" on their cases, that you are probably going to
> have some good cases in there. I don't mean all the cases.

Most of the time, there are. The upfront retainer is a great barrier to
clients bringing you bad cases. You are the one creating a fictional
hypothetical about an imaginary attorney who never has "good cases". Its
your stated fact pattern, but its not real. It a myth.

> Also, not to be picky but it's kind of an understatement to say that
> "routinely intentionally misleading" would be unethical, isn't it? I mean,
> intentionally misleading even once in unethical, and fraudulent. I would
> expect a lawyer must actively prevent himself being unintentionally
> misleading as well.

One act of intentional misleading would be unethical & fraudulent. However,
your specific question was is it unethical for an attorney to have a
particular business model where he/she regularily takes cases with retainers
higher than the later settlement. Hence my use of the word "routinely". In a
practical sense its impossible to show whether someone was intentionally
misleading based on one "bad" case analysis, since there is no way to know
whats in someones head. But reasonable people could infer intent from a
pattern of behavior if in fact that pattern actually existed.

> On 9/26/06, rrr wrote:
>> Its the Lawyers Ethical duty to give a realistic analysis of the case and
>> its value. If an attorney were to routinely be intentionally misleading
>> clients as to the value of the case then yes it would be unethical.
>>
>> The practical problem is knowing if the attorney is intentionally
>> misleading or not.
>>
>> The true value of a case cannot really be obtained without a total
>> analysis of the factors involved. Most clients seldom give you a complete
>> & accurate synopsis, so its quite possible that the lawyers investigation
>> and analysis of value exceeds the value of the case.
>>
>> Think of it like this: a tax preparer gets paid to prepare a tax return,
>> whether the tax return results in money owed to the IRS, or a tax refund.
>> Either way, the time, knowledge and effort required to complete the tax
>> return properly is the same. The client doesn't get to say... "whoa, Mr.
>> Tax Preparer, I'm not getting a refund, your fee is unconscionable". The
>> same is true of most pre-litigation & litigation. In a contingency
>> matter, the attorney takes risk that after the investigation is done the
>> value of the case will exceed a certain level. In a non-contingency case,
>> the client takes the risk.
>>
>> An attorney who charges money to do the case analysis is providing a
>> value. Even if ultimately he tells the client... "your case is crap".
>> Thats a value provided. For some reason, the general public seems to
>> think that Attorneys should give that value away for free, though there
>> is no rational or ethical reason to do so. The fact that the Attorney
>> then mitigates the clients loss by obtaining a "nuisance settlement" from
>> the other side is something the client should be happy about, not a
>> something the Attorney's ethics should be questioned for.
>>
>>
>> On 9/26/06, secretary wrote:
>>> Even when it's part of your business model to regularly recover less
>>> than you charge? I'm not just talking about the odd client who wants to
>>> make a statement. I mean virtually one's entire caseload.
>>>
>>> I would quit if I didn't like who I was working for, or if I felt I was
>>> helping someone unethical.
>>>